Dismissed¶¶54

Smt Saroja Shedthy v. Mr Uday Shetty

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025RSA/709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 709 of 2024 (DEC); Justice H.P. Sandesh; second appeal under Section 100 CPC; proof of Will Ex.P.4 dated 10.03.1989; attesting witness P.W.2; forgery/fabrication plea unsubstantiated; D.W.1 admissions on care of executant and possession; no perversity in concurrent findings; no substantial question of law; appeal dismissed; Kundapura courts; Udupi District.

What did the court decide?

There is no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court; no ground exists to admit the appeal or frame any substantial question of law. ¶¶50

Smt Saroja Shedthy Vs Mr Uday Shetty — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the Will dated 10.03.1989 (Ex.P.4) said to have been executed by Hirianna Shetty in favour of the plaintiffs was duly executed and proved. +1 more

¶¶31

Court's answer

The defendants' contention that the Will is forged and created was not substantiated by placing any documentary evidence except the oral evidence of D.W.1, which supports the case of the plaintiffs.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

There is no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court; no ground exists to admit the appeal or frame any substantial question of law.

¶¶50

Key takeaways

P.W.2, an attesting witness to the Will, categorically deposed that in his presence only the said Hirianna Shetty executed the Will.ratio¶¶46
D.W.1 categorically admitted that neither he himself nor his sister took care of the father Hirianna Shetty, which supports the recitals of Ex.P.4 that the beneficiaries were taking care of the executant.ratio¶¶46
On reading D.W.1's deposition, he did not deny the suggestion that the plaintiffs are in possession and categorically admitted that possession is with the plaintiffs also.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court (O.S.No.116/2013, Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura) and the First Appellate Court (R.A.No.20/2018, Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura), which had upheld a Will dated 10.03.1989 (Ex.P.4) executed by Hirianna Shetty in favour of the plaintiffs. The attesting witness P.W.2 deposed that the Will was executed in his presence; the defendants' specific plea that the Will was forged, fabricated and a false document was not substantiated by any documentary evidence; D.W.1's admissions - that neither he nor his sister cared for the executant during his last days, and that possession of the suit schedule property was with the plaintiffs - supported the plaintiffs' case. Held: no perversity in the concurrent findings and no substantial question of law arises; the second appeal is dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:40039 RSA No. 709 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.709 OF 2024 (DEC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SAROJA SHEDTHY, D/O LATE HIRIANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALINGANAHITHLU, HOSADU VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 247.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. YABESH M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MR. UDAY SHETTY, S/O LATE HIRIANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶16

RESIDING AT MALINGANAHITHLU, HOSADU VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 247.

¶17

MR. ANAND SHETTY, S/O LATE NAGAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.

¶18

MR. SHIVARAMA SHETTY, S/O LATE NAGAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:40039 RSA No. 709 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

MR. SHEKAR SHETTY, S/O LATE NAGAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HANINAMAKKI, HOSADU VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 247.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.116/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA C/C.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶30

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court.

¶31

The main contention of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that a Will was executed in their favour on 10.03.1989. In order to prove the Will, the plaintiffs examined P.W.2, who is an attesting witness to the Will. The defendant No.1 was

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40039 RSA No. 709 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

examined before the Trial Court. The Trial Court taking into note of the admission as well as the contents of the document of Ex.P.4 Will, comes to the conclusion that Will executed by the executant on 10.03.1989 is proved. Though the defendants took the specific contention in the written statement that the Will is forged, fabricated and the same is a false document, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the same is not substantiated by placing any document except examining D.W.1 before the Trial Court. D.W.1 also given the admission with regard to the fact which supports the recitals of the document of Ex.P.4 that the beneficiaries are taking care of the executant of the Will and the same is extracted in paragraph No.29 of the judgment of the Trial Court and hence the Trial Court decreed the suit.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.20/2018. The First Appellate Court formulated the points for consideration and particularly in paragraph No.18 extracted the recitals mentioned in Ex.P.4 Will and even extracted the admission of D.W.1 in paragraph No.20. The First Appellate Court having

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:40039 RSA No. 709 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, re-assessed the same and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶40

Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶41

The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant is defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 colluded with the plaintiffs and that defendant No.1 intentionally avoided the appellant to the Court proceedings and it is not true that the plaintiffs had looked after the said Hirianna Shetty during his last days or that the said Hirianna Shetty had any special attachment towards the plaintiffs. It is further contended that he has not executed any Will dated 10.03.1989 and fraudulently the said document was obtained. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the very approach of both the Courts are not proper and hence it requires interference of this Court.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

¶43

and also on perusal of the material available on record, the Will

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40039 RSA No. 709 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

is marked as Ex.P.4 and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court taken note of the recitals of the Will Ex.P.4. Apart from that, admission on the part of D.W.1, who has been examined before the Trial Court categorically given the admission that either he himself or his sister have not taken care of the father Hirianna Shetty. Both the Courts considering the recitals of Ex.P.4 and also the admission, considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also taken note of the evidence of P.W.2, who is an attesting witness to the Will. P.W.2 categorically deposed that in his presence only the said Hirianna Shetty has executed the Will. The very contention of the defendants that the Will is forged and created is not substantiated by placing any documentary evidence except the oral evidence of D.W.1. The oral evidence of D.W.1 also supports the case of the plaintiffs and he has given categorical admission and the same is extracted in paragraph No.29 of judgment of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court also while re-appreciating the evidence available on record, taken note of admission of D.W.1 in paragraph No.20 and considering the reading of the deposition of the said D.W.1, it shows that he clearly admitted that the possession of the suit schedule

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:40039 RSA No. 709 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

property was with their father up to his death, but he did not deny the suggestion to the effect that the plaintiffs are not in possession and he categorically admitted that possession is with the plaintiffs also. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law and there is no any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and hence no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶51